lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.20-rc1


On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
>
> In total isolation, v2.6.19..0e75f9063f5c55fb0b0b546a7c356f8ec186825e it
> breaks. Reverting just 0e75f9063f5c55fb0b0b546a7c356f8ec186825e, it works
> again.
>
> So I think this is the source, but I can't explain why it "goes away" before
> git1 and "comes back" before 2.6.20-rc1.

Can you see if the kernel state at commit 77d172ce ("[PATCH] fix SG_IO bio
leak") is good? Ie just do something like

git checkout -b test-branch 77d172ce

and compile and test that?

That commit _should_ be the one that fixed whatever problems that commit
0e75f906 introduced. It *did* fix it for other - somewhat similar -
situations.

That said: Jens - I think 0e75f906 was a mistake. "blk_rq_unmap()" really
should be passed the "struct bio", not the "struct request *". Right now
it does something _really_ strange with requests with linked bio's, and I
don't think your and FUJITA's "leak fix" really works. What happens when
the bio was a linked list on the request, and you put the old _head_ on
the request with "rq->bio = bio"? What happens to the other parts of it?

IOW, I think this is broken. I think we should revert 0e75f906. Or at
least you should explain to me why it's not broken, and why clearly people
(eg Alistair) still see problems with it?

Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site